Storm is talking to Sinister and Exodus. The usual 'because it's the right thing' shpiel wasn't going to work and she explained it in terms they could understand. That's literally all that's going on there.
Storm is talking to Sinister and Exodus. The usual 'because it's the right thing' shpiel wasn't going to work and she explained it in terms they could understand. That's literally all that's going on there.
If anything, Storm was making a point to Sinister and Exodus, that even they can’t argue against.
Storm countering a bad argument put forward by Sinister and Exodus about the nature of ecological dependence does not equate to that being the only reason she would fight for humans, or even a major reason or even a slightly important one. She was putting two loudmouths in their place by demonstrating their ignorance. Her line had everything to do with Exodus and Sinister's motivations and nothing about her own
Yeah out of context sound bad, but with picture and with the restoration story you realise that
A) she is putting it in the simplest term possible for those two morons to understand(in a spoofshe would put out a blackboard and make child drawings for them to get that kill innocent people is bad)
B) love how Storm is depicted as being repulsed to talk to them! She can barely hold her stomach talking to those fiends. (Also just realised that Jean and the summmers family choose to live on funking moon rather than share space with certain people more than necessary...)
I could debate this but, I think considering that Hickman already addressed it, his words should be good enough.
linkOriginally Posted by Jonathan Hickman
From the authors own mouth, there is nothing coercive or punitive about the law. That last point was also addressed in the books in excalibur with Rogue wrestling with the idea of if she wanted to be a mom. spoiler, for now at least she decided against it, and no punishment. We have, published examples of
1) Human relatives living in Krakoa
2) Mutants raising human children without even the hint of punishment or censure
3) Mutants making a conscious choice not to have children without even the hint of punishment or censure
Last edited by Kisinith; 06-20-2021 at 01:07 PM.
So we're down to throwing stones for what they might possibly do if the law is interpreted in a very narrow specific way that hasn't been shown in any book, hasn't been hinted at in any book, is directly contradicted by actual events in the books, and is in direct violation of what the author has stated about the law.
Fair enough, and I can see quite clearly how little patience Storm has for their nonsense. I still think, those characters being who they are (admittedly I don't know much about Exodus other than he's been an antagonist), that they don't deserve an answer on their terms. Besides, that argument just isn't going to work anyway, it was a nice moment for Storm but ultimately meaningless in regards to them. That is just my personal opinion, I don't think I'll ever be okay with certain characters working so closely with the X-Men no matter how disgusted some of them are about it.
Also fair enough. I hadn't seen that interview by Hickman, I tend not to seek that stuff out, but as you can see he himself says that there was bound to be confusion because he liked the sound of the phrase. Having seen this, that's all I need to move on from this point.
Does it need doing?
Yes.
Then it will be done.
Hickman made X-men heartless, something they never were, it causes confusion about the kind of people the X-men are. Hickman should have used his own characters.
It is a fiction, I consider it’s bad fiction compared to previous stuff, is bad fiction necessarily need to exist other than making money for Marvel?
“Strength is the lot of but a few privileged men; but austere perseverance, harsh and continuous, may be employed by the smallest of us and rarely fails of its purpose, for its silent power grows irresistibly greater with time.” Goethe
Sinister and Exodus are on the council. For better or worse, they can't be ignored. Storm could have just not been involved in the council discussion and gone herself, especially since she brought no one else with her, but then she'd risk getting kicked off the council like Jean was. By securing a vote sanctioning her involvement she could help and keep her position so she could continue to oppose them on the council.
The precedent set by X of Swords is that the captains can use their wartime authority to get involved and requisition whatever mutants they want, but council members need explicit permission from the rest of the council to get involved. So Magik needed no one's permission to go herself or bring along the Dark Riders, but Storm couldn't go with Magik until the council voted in her favor just like how Jean was punished by being kicked off the council for going with Scott in X of Swords even though no one could lift a finger to stop Scott or do anything about the dozens of other mutants he brought along.
The concept of Omega mutants and power level classifications in general don't add anything of value to characters, only constricts creativity, and creates needless arguing among the fanbase. It's one of those ideas that should have remained in the past and hopefully it'll be headed back to the trash heap before Hickman's run comes to a close.
Couldn't agree more.
Unpopular opinion: Asking where the Avengers/FF were when the X-men could use their help is the same as asking where the X-men were when Kang/Galactus came to conquer/consume earth for the billionth time and both questions are ridiculous as it has more to do with the nature of comics than the specific characters.
For the most part I agree that the Avengers don't have to be around to help the X-Men deal with their threats. The problem is that so often when they do get involved it's as an antagonistic force. Second Coming had the heroes gather outside the Bastion dome and try to get in. That was good. They tried to help but couldn't. But with AvX the Avengers became needlessly antagonistic, and afterwards it really seemed like they didn't care whatsoever about mutant rights or survival. Captain America had no problem using the threat of anti-mutant forces in the US government to blackmail Wolverine into going to see Cyclops in jail - knowing full-well that there was a high probability Wolverine would murder Cyclops in cold blood. Then the Avengers and Shield were all over the X-Men for rescuing mutants who were being attacked by bigoted police or by sentinels. It creates the impression that they're fine with anti-mutant bigotry and violence. Captain America was more sympathetic to mutants when he was head of Hydra than when he was supposedly a good man.
So agree on this point. The Celestial Fourth Host showed up to 'judge' whether or not the Earth was fit to survive or a failed experiment, and only Thor and the Eternals showed up. No Avengers, no FF, and no X-folk. It's just who was there, at the time. Not every crisis that plotz down on Yancy Street is going to be *noticed* by some mutants hanging out a couple hundred miles away in upstate New York. (They'll hear about in the news, long after it's over, same as everyone else!)
I don't thinks it's a personal failing on the part of the X-Men that they rarely show up to fight Annihilus or Galactus or Ultron or Kang or Thanos or the Masters of Evil. And it's not a personal failing on the part of the Avengers or Fantastic Four that they don't show up to fight Sinister, Apocalypse or the Phalanx. (Although there are the occasional bits of cross-pollination, such as the Morlock Massacre, when Thor got involved and smote the Marauder named Blockbuster dead with a hammer to the noggin, or Onslaught, when all three teams showed up.)